Amtrak in Wyoming!?

[railiner]

That subject has come up a few times...not sure of what or when you heard it.

There is often talk of a "Front Range" service from Pueblo to Colorado Springs to Denver to Cheyenne via either Greeley or Boulder-Longmont- Loveland-Ft. Collins.

It usually doesn't amount to much more than that. Same old problem--funding, as well as debatable projections of ridership. Compounding the problem is the already overcrowded Joint Line between Pueblo and Denver. And while the more populous route is the BNSF via Fort Collins and Boulder, the UP route via Greeley, the former route of the SFZ, is much faster.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Probably filmed it somewhere with similar terrain.

Looks to me to be somewhere in the vicinity of Praven!!

Actually, Praven looks more like Virginia.

As far as equipment goes.....when the Pioneer first began, it consisted of a baggage car, a couple of Amfleet I's, an Amdinette, and a Heritage 10-6 sleeper. It originated in SLC, received connection from the RGZ, then the same at Ogden from the SFZ, and continued up to Seattle.
In the matter of detours, "that far north", the SFZ on occasion would detour even further north--by way of McCammon, Idaho, when the line thru Echo Canyon was blocked....

I was aboard the SFZ during one of those detours eastbound, and after regaining the mainline at Granger, Wyoming, "Uncle Pete" put on a dazzling display of its might, rolling us along at 100 per, until turning down towards Denver at Speer. We arrived in Denver just slightly delayed, thanks also to some padding.

Union Pacific still had some pride in those years.....

Up through Idaho? Could someone post a map? I don't even know which line you are talking about. :help:

I can't post a map, either, But if you look at an old Amtrak route map that showed the route of the Pioneer, the detour I rode went north from Ogden on that route until reaching McCammon, Id., which is just south of Pocatello. From there we turned southeast, on the route of the former UP City of Portland, until reaching the UP mainline at Granger, Wy......

Thanks, now I know what you are talking about.

That subject has come up a few times...not sure of what or when you heard it.There is often talk of a "Front Range" service from Pueblo to Colorado Springs to Denver to Cheyenne via either Greeley or Boulder-Longmont- Loveland-Ft. Collins.

It usually doesn't amount to much more than that. Same old problem--funding, as well as debatable projections of ridership. Compounding the problem is the already overcrowded Joint Line between Pueblo and Denver. And while the more populous route is the BNSF via Fort Collins and Boulder, the UP route via Greeley, the former route of the SFZ, is much faster.

I would prefer the Greeley route since it still has lots of population. It should also run all the way to ABQ, with connections to ELP.

 

[jis]

As far as equipment goes.....when the Pioneer first began, it consisted of a baggage car, a couple of Amfleet I's, an Amdinette, and a Heritage 10-6 sleeper. It originated in SLC, received connection from the RGZ, then the same at Ogden from the SFZ, and continued up to Seattle.
In the matter of detours, "that far north", the SFZ on occasion would detour even further north--by way of McCammon, Idaho, when the line thru Echo Canyon was blocked....

I was aboard the SFZ during one of those detours eastbound, and after regaining the mainline at Granger, Wyoming, "Uncle Pete" put on a dazzling display of its might, rolling us along at 100 per, until turning down towards Denver at Speer. We arrived in Denver just slightly delayed, thanks also to some padding.

Union Pacific still had some pride in those years.....

Yep, I remember the early Amtrak Pioneer. Traveled on it one frigid winter.

BTW, when you traveled on the UP San Francisco train surely it was called the City of San Francisco and not the San Francisco Zephyr?

BTW, one serious problem in restoring the Pioneer is that the tracks for getting to Boise from the East are not quite there anymore. So the Boise stop will have to be in the boonies with a bus connection, sort of like Borie for Cheyenne.

 

[railiner]

As far as equipment goes.....when the Pioneer first began, it consisted of a baggage car, a couple of Amfleet I's, an Amdinette, and a Heritage 10-6 sleeper. It originated in SLC, received connection from the RGZ, then the same at Ogden from the SFZ, and continued up to Seattle.
In the matter of detours, "that far north", the SFZ on occasion would detour even further north--by way of McCammon, Idaho, when the line thru Echo Canyon was blocked....

I was aboard the SFZ during one of those detours eastbound, and after regaining the mainline at Granger, Wyoming, "Uncle Pete" put on a dazzling display of its might, rolling us along at 100 per, until turning down towards Denver at Speer. We arrived in Denver just slightly delayed, thanks also to some padding.

Union Pacific still had some pride in those years.....

BTW, when you traveled on the UP San Francisco train surely it was called the City of San Francisco and not the San Francisco Zephyr?

Was definitely the Amtrak Number 6, The San Francisco Zephyr, Long after the City of San Francisco and its sibling 'City' Fleet had gone. UP did not share the 'issues' other roads had with those big SDP40F's rolling on its triple-track, cab signaled, superhighway.....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

As far as equipment goes.....when the Pioneer first began, it consisted of a baggage car, a couple of Amfleet I's, an Amdinette, and a Heritage 10-6 sleeper. It originated in SLC, received connection from the RGZ, then the same at Ogden from the SFZ, and continued up to Seattle.
In the matter of detours, "that far north", the SFZ on occasion would detour even further north--by way of McCammon, Idaho, when the line thru Echo Canyon was blocked....

I was aboard the SFZ during one of those detours eastbound, and after regaining the mainline at Granger, Wyoming, "Uncle Pete" put on a dazzling display of its might, rolling us along at 100 per, until turning down towards Denver at Speer. We arrived in Denver just slightly delayed, thanks also to some padding.

Union Pacific still had some pride in those years.....

BTW, when you traveled on the UP San Francisco train surely it was called the City of San Francisco and not the San Francisco Zephyr?

Was definitely the Amtrak Number 6, The San Francisco Zephyr, Long after the City of San Francisco and its sibling 'City' Fleet had gone. UP did not share the 'issues' other roads had with those big SDP40F's rolling on its triple-track, cab signaled, superhighway.....

How fast can pax trains go on their original line (Overland)?

 

[railiner]

As far as equipment goes.....when the Pioneer first began, it consisted of a baggage car, a couple of Amfleet I's, an Amdinette, and a Heritage 10-6 sleeper. It originated in SLC, received connection from the RGZ, then the same at Ogden from the SFZ, and continued up to Seattle.
In the matter of detours, "that far north", the SFZ on occasion would detour even further north--by way of McCammon, Idaho, when the line thru Echo Canyon was blocked....

I was aboard the SFZ during one of those detours eastbound, and after regaining the mainline at Granger, Wyoming, "Uncle Pete" put on a dazzling display of its might, rolling us along at 100 per, until turning down towards Denver at Speer. We arrived in Denver just slightly delayed, thanks also to some padding.

Union Pacific still had some pride in those years.....

BTW, when you traveled on the UP San Francisco train surely it was called the City of San Francisco and not the San Francisco Zephyr?

Was definitely the Amtrak Number 6, The San Francisco Zephyr, Long after the City of San Francisco and its sibling 'City' Fleet had gone. UP did not share the 'issues' other roads had with those big SDP40F's rolling on its triple-track, cab signaled, superhighway.....

How fast can pax trains go on their original line (Overland)?

Legally, in cab signal territory, I believe it was 90 mph. But I've timed many miles fly by in less than 36 seconds. I suppose they were more lenient in those years, but the superb roadway was probably safe to run at a much greater speed than that.....

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

As far as equipment goes.....when the Pioneer first began, it consisted of a baggage car, a couple of Amfleet I's, an Amdinette, and a Heritage 10-6 sleeper. It originated in SLC, received connection from the RGZ, then the same at Ogden from the SFZ, and continued up to Seattle.
In the matter of detours, "that far north", the SFZ on occasion would detour even further north--by way of McCammon, Idaho, when the line thru Echo Canyon was blocked....

I was aboard the SFZ during one of those detours eastbound, and after regaining the mainline at Granger, Wyoming, "Uncle Pete" put on a dazzling display of its might, rolling us along at 100 per, until turning down towards Denver at Speer. We arrived in Denver just slightly delayed, thanks also to some padding.

Union Pacific still had some pride in those years.....

BTW, when you traveled on the UP San Francisco train surely it was called the City of San Francisco and not the San Francisco Zephyr?

Was definitely the Amtrak Number 6, The San Francisco Zephyr, Long after the City of San Francisco and its sibling 'City' Fleet had gone. UP did not share the 'issues' other roads had with those big SDP40F's rolling on its triple-track, cab signaled, superhighway.....

How fast can pax trains go on their original line (Overland)?

Legally, in cab signal territory, I believe it was 90 mph. But I've timed many miles fly by in less than 36 seconds. I suppose they were more lenient in those years, but the superb roadway was probably safe to run at a much greater speed than that.....

Wow, 90 mph through Wyoming would be great for a corridor. Wyoming should fund a DEN-SLC route, it's less interesting then the GJT one but much faster and probably more population, too.

 

[chakk]

Very little population between on the UP Wyoming route between Denver and Ogden, UT. Certainly not more population than the existing route for the CZ, although the Wyoming would certainly be a couple hours faster.

And BTW, I was told by the lead ticket agent at GSC that this station is the second most used by passengers enroute, after Denver. Of course, I am not including the endpoints (CHI and EMY) in these statistics.

 

[fairviewroad]

And BTW, I was told by the lead ticket agent at GSC that this station is the second most used by passengers enroute, after Denver. Of course, I am not including the endpoints (CHI and EMY) in these statistics.

Second most used in Colorado, yes. But SLC has more overall passengers. Reno easily outdoes both GSC and SLC but it's not clear to me whether Reno's

figure includes Thruway bus passengers. And I'd bet that SAC far outpaces GSC in terms of CZ pax but it's hard to break that down using the state

fact sheets since SAC serves many other trains other than the CZ. Still, GSC enjoys an impressively high number of passengers considering the

actual size of the town. (Grand Junction is right on its tail, however.)

 

[railiner]

Back in the Rio Grande Zephyr days, Glenwood Springs enjoyed a tremendous load of Denverites and others, taking a weekend 'getaway'. The RGZ schedule was ideal for an overnite stay there to enjoy the hot springs pool, and other recreational activites. Often times almost 200 would take that excursion. All the nearby hotels would fill the street with their courtesy vans to meet passengers. The train was a lot quieter on to SLC....

I am not familiar with how the CZ does there nowadays, but they probably limit the availability on that segment so that thru passengers are not prevented from travel.

 

[lthanlon]

When I lived in Rock Springs in the late 1970s, I lived a couple of blocks from the city's tidy, downtown station and enjoyed watching the Zephyr come and go. Never got a chance to ride it, though.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

There definitely would not be a higher passenger count from en-route destinations on the Overland route than there would be on Rio Grande line. Although I think there could be a decline in pax DEN-SLC for scenery, there could be a boost if a train with corridor-padding as opposed to LD-padding plus Overland speeds ON the Overland route existed. Being able to have a 12 or 13-hour train would be amazing now, as compared to the 25 currently in place. Obviously, getting those times would necessitate going through less-populous Greeley instead of the Upper Front Range cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont, then onto Boulder and Denver.

 

[railiner]

In the grand scheme of things, speed on a transcontinental train is of little importance, nowadays....anyone in a hurry will of course fly. The CZ was always marketed for its scenic advantage, and sheduled appropriately, versus its contemporary competitors, City of San Francisco, and San Francisco Chief....

And neither of the latter served Denver directly, the largest market between the Missouri River and the 'Coast'...

 

[chakk]

Back in the Rio Grande Zephyr days, Glenwood Springs enjoyed a tremendous load of Denverites and others, taking a weekend 'getaway'. The RGZ schedule was ideal for an overnite stay there to enjoy the hot springs pool, and other recreational activites. Often times almost 200 would take that excursion. All the nearby hotels would fill the street with their courtesy vans to meet passengers. The train was a lot quieter on to SLC....I am not familiar with how the CZ does there nowadays, but they probably limit the availability on that segment so that thru passengers are not prevented from travel.

Amtrak still promotes many weekend trips to GSC from DEN. I have several times detrained from #6 at GSC with the conductor announcing before arrival that every seat in coach would be needed out of GSC for the large crowd boarding there -- and then watched at least 75 people board the train while I collected my checked luggage.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

And BTW, I was told by the lead ticket agent at GSC that this station is the second most used by passengers enroute, after Denver. Of course, I am not including the endpoints (CHI and EMY) in these statistics.

Second most used in Colorado, yes. But SLC has more overall passengers. Reno easily outdoes both GSC and SLC but it's not clear to me whether Reno's

figure includes Thruway bus passengers. And I'd bet that SAC far outpaces GSC in terms of CZ pax but it's hard to break that down using the state

fact sheets since SAC serves many other trains other than the CZ. Still, GSC enjoys an impressively high number of passengers considering the

actual size of the town. (Grand Junction is right on its tail, however.)

RNO probably includes the thruway pax because I didn't spot much pax both times I passed through.

There definitely would not be a higher passenger count from en-route destinations on the Overland route than there would be on Rio Grande line. Although I think there could be a decline in pax DEN-SLC for scenery, there could be a boost if a train with corridor-padding as opposed to LD-padding plus Overland speeds ON the Overland route existed. Being able to have a 12 or 13-hour train would be amazing now, as compared to the 25 currently in place. Obviously, getting those times would necessitate going through less-populous Greeley instead of the Upper Front Range cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont, then onto Boulder and Denver.

It does not take 25 hours to go DEN-SLC currently. I don't know what you're talking about.